From Lenin
Oct. 13, 1905.

Dear friend! The resolution of the Odessa Committee on professional struggle (the "decisions" no. 6 or 5, unclear; in letter no. 24. Dated September 1905) seems to me to be erroneous in the highest degree. In my opinion, the preoccupation with struggle against the Mensheviks is, of course, naturally explained, but one should not fall into another extreme. And the resolution does precisely fall into another extreme. I therefore permit myself to examine critically the resolution of the Odessa Committee, asking the comrades to discuss my remarks, which are in no way prompted by a desire to quibble.

The resolution has three (unnumbered) parts in the preamble and five (numbered) parts in the operative section proper. The first part (the initial point of the preamble) is entirely good: to take upon oneself "the direction of all manifestations of the class struggle of the proletariat" and "never forget the task" of directing professional struggle. Excellent. Further, the second point: the task of "first priority" is supposedly the preparation of armed insurrection and (the 3rd point or the end of the preamble) "by virtue of this the task of directing the professional struggle of the proletariat is inevitably relegated to second place." This, in my view, is theoretically incorrect and tactically wrong.

It is theoretically incorrect to juxtapose two tasks as though they were equal, as though lying in one plane: "the task of preparing armed insurrection" and "the task of directing professional struggle." One task is supposedly first, another is second. To say so means to compare and juxtapose things of different orders. Armed insurrection is a method of political struggle at the given moment. Professional struggle is one of the permanent, always necessary under capitalism, at all moments obligatory manifestations of the entire workers' movement. Engels, in one place cited by me in *What Is to Be Done?*, distinguishes three basic forms of proletarian struggle: economic, political, theoretical—that is, professional, political, theoretical (scientific, ideological, philosophical). How then can one place side by side one of these basic forms of struggle (professional) with a method of another basic form of struggle at the given moment? to place the entire professional struggle, as a "task," alongside the present and far from unique means of political struggle? This is directly an incommensurable thing, something like adding tenths to hundredths without reducing to a common denominator. In my view, both these (the second and third) points of the preamble ought to be removed. Alongside the "task of directing professional struggle" one can place only the task of directing political struggle generally, the task of conducting ideological struggle generally in its entirety, in no way those or other particular, given, contemporary tasks of political or ideological struggle.

Both these points should have been replaced by an indication of the necessity never for a moment to forget about political struggle, about enlightening the working class in the full scope of social-democratic ideas, about the necessity of striving toward a close and inseparable connection between all manifestations of the workers' movement to create a unified, truly social-democratic movement. This indication could have been the second point of the preamble.

The third could have been a statement of the necessity to warn against a narrow understanding and narrow posing of professional struggle, assiduously propagated by the bourgeoisie. I, of course, am not proposing a draft resolution, nor do I touch upon the question of whether it is worth speaking of this separately; I am merely analyzing for now what expression of your thought would be theoretically correct.

Tactically, the resolution in its present form poses the tasks of armed insurrection very poorly. Armed insurrection is the highest method of political struggle. For its success from the standpoint of the proletariat, that is, for the success of proletarian insurrection and that directed by social-democracy, not another, insurrection, there is needed wide development of all sides of the workers' movement. It is therefore entirely incorrect to oppose the task of insurrection to the task of directing professional struggle. This diminishes, trivializes the task of insurrection. Instead of the outcome and culmination of the entire workers' movement as a whole, there emerges some sort of singling out of the task of insurrection. It is as if two things are being confused: a resolution on professional struggle in general (on this theme the resolution of the Odessa Committee is written) and a resolution on the distribution of forces in the present work of the Odessa Committee (toward this your resolution drifts, and this is quite, quite a different matter).

I turn to the numbered points of the operative section proper.

*Ad I.* "Expose illusions" "which are connected with professional unions"... this is acceptable enough, though it would be better to do without it. First, this is included in the preamble, where there should be indicated the inseparable connection of all sides of the movement. Second, it is not said what illusions. If one is going to insert this, then one should add: bourgeois illusions about the possibility of satisfying the economic and other needs of the working class in capitalist society.
..."insistently emphasizing their (the unions'?) narrowness compared with the ultimate goals of the workers' movement." It turns out that all professional unions are "narrow." But social-democratic professional unions, connected with the political organization of the proletariat? The center of gravity is not in the fact that professional unions are "narrow," but in connecting this one (and to that extent narrow, because it is one) side with the others. Consequently, either strike out this, or again say something about the necessity of creating and strengthening the connection of one side with all, impregnating professional unions with social-democratic content, social-democratic propaganda, drawing into all social-democratic work, etc.

*Ad II.* Fine.

*Ad III.* It is incorrect, for the reasons indicated, to juxtapose with the task of professional unions the "most urgent and primary task" of armed insurrection. There is no need to speak of armed insurrection in a resolution on professional struggle, because it is a means toward that "overthrow of tsarist autocracy" spoken of in point II. Professional unions could broaden the base from which we shall draw strength for insurrection, so that, I say once again, to set one against the other is erroneous.

*Ad IV.* "Conduct energetic ideological struggle against the so-called minority" returning to "economism" "on questions of professional unions." Is this not too general for a resolution of the Odessa Committee? Does it not smack of exaggeration? After all, there has been no criticism in the press of a single resolution of all the Mensheviks on "professional unions." It was merely pointed out that liberals praise them for the tendency to bustle about this question not with Understanding. But from this [the conclusion] is only that we should bustle about "with Understanding," but must certainly bustle about as well. In my view, either strike out this point entirely, confining ourselves to an indication of warning against narrowness and struggle against the tendencies of the bourgeoisie and liberals to distort the tasks of professional unions;—or formulate it specially in connection with some given resolution of the Mensheviks (I am not aware of such resolutions at the present time; perhaps some Akimovite ones have appeared among you in the south).

*Ad V.* This is the thing. The words "and if possible, direction" I would replace with "and direction." We do everything "if possible." The insertion of these words here and only here will provoke incorrect interpretation, as if we strive less toward direction, etc.

In my view, generally speaking, one ought to beware of exaggerating the struggle against the Mensheviks on this question. Now, probably, professional unions will soon begin to arise. One must not stand aloof and above all must not give cause for the thought that one ought to stand aloof, but should strive to participate, to influence, etc. After all, there is a special layer of workers, older, family men, who will contribute very little to political struggle now, but very much to professional struggle. One must use this layer, directing only its steps in this sphere. For Russian social-democracy it is important at the very beginning to strike the correct note on professional unions, immediately to create a tradition of social-democratic initiative in this area, social-democratic participation, social-democratic direction.

Of course, in practice there may not be enough forces, but this is quite a different question, and what is more: if one knows how to use all diverse forces, there will always be some for professional unions as well. Forces were found to write a resolution on professional unions, that is, to give ideological direction, and after all this is the main point!

I shake your hand and ask you to send me word of receipt of this letter and your thoughts on it.

Your N. Lenin

Sent from Geneva to Odessa

First published in 1926

in Leninist Collection V

Printed from the manuscript